• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

It's difficult to argue that it's not about discriminating against gays when the people who wrote it are some of th most vocal anti-gay bigots the state.

also when amendments to clarify that by issue were struck down by the lawmakers. If it's not about discriminating, why did they block anti-discrimination language from the bill?


Yet here is a Pro Gay Attorney who is a Law Professor, that says.....this is a whole lot of noise about nothing. As well as explaining out why those into religions need a law that protects their Rights thru RFRA and the Constitution.
 
They should have the option under scenario #2 to decline the offer of doing business with the couple. If you know someone hates you and/or your lifestyle, and it makes you uncomfortable dealing with them, you should have the right to walk away from the offer. That's why I think the law need to be updated or made right. In both cases I support the right of the business owner to not be forced into commerce.

That is the crucial point in this. There is a difference between discriminating with sales out of store front and discriminating who you enter into a contract with.

But this is all a ridiculous had waving exercise anyway since the Federal government and 19 other states have the exact same law in place, and it is not the blanket authorization to refuse service to gays. Hell, this law was introduced to the congress originally by Chuck Schumer.
 
Dunno, fishing for more information. My friend and his partner have live in the tiny town of Fairmount Indiana since 1980 and this type of thing is nothing new to them. It just may get worse now.

So did you find out the details on this physician who coincidentally decided to refuse medial treatment to your friend on the exact same day that Pence signed this into law?
 
And when the only pharmacy for 60 miles puts up a "no Jews" sign in the window, what then?

The law doesn't protect that. It's amazing how you let the left wing screw with your head...
 
That is the crucial point in this. There is a difference between discriminating with sales out of store front and discriminating who you enter into a contract with.

But this is all a ridiculous had waving exercise anyway since the Federal government and 19 other states have the exact same law in place, and it is not the blanket authorization to refuse service to gays. Hell, this law was introduced to the congress originally by Chuck Schumer.

Not only did Schumer introduce the RFRA into being, SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was one its biggest fans when she was a lawyer for the ACLU.
 
And when the only pharmacy for 60 miles puts up a "no Jews" sign in the window, what then?

That would be discrimination on Race......how does this apply with this situation again?
 
Sounds like a plight of conscience.

The silly part is this is over cake and flowers.

If that's all that's at stake, then Indiana can amend the law to protect gays from discrimination except in cases of cake and flowers. I would take a large bet that's not going to happen. It's bigger than cake and flowers.
 
Best guess is that was a homosexual pretending to be a restaurant owner, a false flag if you will. Like that black professor who trashed her own car with racial epithets painted on it and claimed it was done by racists

Wow, another coincidence. They're rampant all over Indiana. The poster Henry said he has a gay friend who was coincidentally refuse medical treatment by a physician in Indiana within minutes of Pence signing this law.

Color me skeptical, but all of these anonymous anecdotes stink to high Heaven.
 
That is the crucial point in this. There is a difference between discriminating with sales out of store front and discriminating who you enter into a contract with.

But this is all a ridiculous had waving exercise anyway since the Federal government and 19 other states have the exact same law in place, and it is not the blanket authorization to refuse service to gays. Hell, this law was introduced to the congress originally by Chuck Schumer.


Mornin JM. :2wave: That would be 30 other states. Yep, an Chucky Cheese was the one to bring it. That's who Harry Reid is picking to Lead the Demos. Harry just chose the New Yorker over Durbin the Chicagoan.
yepp.gif
 
And apparently YOU FORGOT that your holy book says that first and foremost, you should leave judgement to a power above yourself
Just for the record, you don't have the right to tell others how they exercise their religion
 
Yet here is a Pro Gay Attorney who is a Law Professor, that says.....this is a whole lot of noise about nothing. As well as explaining out why those into religions need a law that protects their Rights thru RFRA and the Constitution.

He is wrong.

The law doesn't protect that. It's amazing how you let the left wing screw with your head...

That would be discrimination on Race......how does this apply with this situation again?

The poster I responded to indicated that a business shouldn't be forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve.

So, are you two stating that race or religion should be protected but sexuality should not?
 
do you trim your hair or beard?
eat shellfish or pork?
have a flat nose?
wear clothes made of more than one fabric?

You do understand the difference between the old testament and the new testament, don't you?
 
You do understand the difference between the old testament and the new testament, don't you?

No. Both are selectively applied by Christians.
 
Being elected does not mean they are better judges, in fact I think they are possibly even (or should I say most likely) better than chosen judges because they do not have to pander to the special interests and the people who bankroll their elections. Judges should not be elected IMHO, they should uphold the law, not be in the pockets of the biggest political sponsors or political parties. Judges need to be totally independent.

Judges shouldn't be elected I agree. How do you believe they should get to their respective positions then?

That story in your signature line. Did that news make it to the Netherlands?
 
If the owner of a restaurant was black, and in came a bunch of skinheads, would you oppose his right to decline service to them?

If they're behaving themselves, then of course the law should require the restaurant to serve them.
 
He is wrong.

The poster I responded to indicated that a business shouldn't be forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve.

So, are you two stating that race or religion should be protected but sexuality should not?



The Law Professor who writes for the LGBT Issues for the left is wrong. :shock: ..... :lol: .....
funny.gif
...... :lamo .....
smiley_ROFLMAO.gif



You really should read the law again.
 
"the blacks" wished for an age old system to be destroyed.

how uppity, huh?

When a business puts a sign in their window saying "No Gays Allowed", forces them sit in the back of buses, or makes them drink from seperate water fountains, get back to me... I guarantee I'll stand side by side with you to denounce those practices.

Until then however, I will defend the first amendment and support Indiana's law.
 
No. Both are selectively applied by Christians.

The anti-Christians invariably rely on the Old Testament to guide what they think Christians should and shouldn't do as Christians, ignoring the New Testament entirely.
 
If they're behaving themselves, then of course the law should require the restaurant to serve them.

Interesting. So when those same skinheads are throwing a party, and they demand that a black woman cater it, you'd oppose her declining the offer. If a slaughterhouse wants a Muslim owned commercial cleaning company to clean up the pig blood, you'd oppose them declining the offer.
 
The anti-Christians invariably rely on the Old Testament to guide what they think Christians should and shouldn't do as Christians, ignoring the New Testament entirely.

Yeah I did mention that the only ones this really hurts.....are those that like to dump on people who are into religions. Which they will look to be the most vocal in trying to create that confusion and chaos.
 
The Law Professor who writes for the LGBT Issues for the left is wrong. :shock: ..... :lol: .....
funny.gif
...... :lamo .....
smiley_ROFLMAO.gif



You really should read the law again.

A business is going to file a suit under this law for their right to refuse service to homosexuals. They will argue that it substantially burdens their religious freedom to be made to serve homosexuals. It will be a long, expensive lawsuit with multiple appeals costing the Illinois taxpayers millions.

It could have been avoided by adding language to clarify that aspect of the law. Such amendments were rejected. Why?

Edit for clarification: I'm not saying this bill explicitly allows discrimination against homosexuals, or strengthens the ability to do so. I'm saying business owners are going to interpret it this way because that's exactly how it was sold to them in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about that. The Supreme Court has largely left intact the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law was deemed an unconstitutional use of Congress' enforcement powers as it applied to the states, but that's about it. It still applies to the federal government. So now some states are using this law (which, incidentally, was introduced by one of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, Chuck Schumer, passed unanimously in in the House, and signed into law by Bill Clinton) as a model to answer the adoption of same-sex marriage within their borders by court decree. Since SCOTUS said the federal law doesn't apply to the states, some states felt they needed to close that argument. More recently SCOTUS has shown a tendency to uphold religious freedom, as in the Hobby Lobby case.

Yes, you may be right. I read your post twice and both times agree with what you're saying. You make a lot of good points.
 
You realize this is the exact same thing same by the bigots back in 2004 when state after state had gay marriage bans right.

Now in june they'll be shown their proper place - the lowest common denominator of hateful worthless trash

This law and the others like it are entirely out of animus for a particular group and therefore are unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time, only indiana's reputation for this, like the south for jim crow, will *never* be forgotten

You're being a little hyperbolic, first off Indiana has never had a law protecting sexual orientation as a protected class, so the new bill doesn't legalize discrimination, it was NEVER illegal to begin with. Yet all these self righteous people are suddenly now boycotting Indiana, that's the funny part.

Second, the IRFRA is modeled word for word after a federal statute that passed unanimously in 1993.

The original purpose of that law was that the Supreme Court had lowered the bar for protecting religious expression in a case dealing with ceremonial use of peyote by native tribes.

All it does is set a standard for how courts weigh religious liberty claims. Please cite the section of statute that authorizes discrimination
 
1.)Then you self contradicted.
2.) I merely wanted to set the record straight.
3.) Thank you

1.) nope didnt at all, you tried to twist what was actually said and failed
2.) the record is straight what i said and what was claimed was said were totally different
3.) you're welcome let me know if i can help out with any other mistakes in your posts

fact remains
i dont know one Christian affected negatively by equal rights and nondiscrimination laws
none, zero, nota
 
They should have the option under scenario #2 to decline the offer of doing business with the couple. If you know someone hates you and/or your lifestyle, and it makes you uncomfortable dealing with them, you should have the right to walk away from the offer. That's why I think the law need to be updated or made right. In both cases I support the right of the business owner to not be forced into commerce.

OK, so how far does this go? Employment and housing? So if your son has a job, doing well, 12 years there, and the employer finds out he's gay and fires him. OK?
 
Back
Top Bottom